Contrary to what I’ve argued before, the danger from white UK militants is not equivalent to that presented from Al-Qaeda – there are, for example, no known neo-Nazi training camps. Yet there are people infused with apolocalyptic racial ideology, they have been known to make bombs, they have demonstrable associations with the BNP. They have been encouraged by the recession but their beliefs are self-sustaining. In his foreword, Denis MacShane highlights examples of far right terror activity from last year:

In July, Yorkshire police raided a neo-Nazi terror cell with international links. They seized the largest suspected terrorist arsenal since the IRA bombings of the early 1990s. Twenty properties were raided and over 300 weapons and 80 bombs were discovered by counter-terrorism detectives. The hardware included rocket launchers, grenades, pipe bombs and dozens of firearms. Several people were charged, and over 30 were questioned over the incident.

In September, Neil Lewington, a follower of [Nazi network Blood and Honour], was jailed indefinitely for attempting to launch a bombing campaign against non-white Britons. In his flat, police discovered a bomb-making factory and neo-Nazi literature. Court reports said that Lewington wanted to emulate his ‘heroes’ – David Copeland, the Soho bomber, and Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber.

In May, Terence Gavan, a card-carrying member of the BNP, was arrested after police raided his home. In January 2010, he was convicted on terrorism charges and sentenced to 11 years in prison, after a stockpile of nail and ball-bearing bombs, shotguns, improvised explosive devices and pistols was found at his house.

MacShane goes on to say this:

On the threat of far-right violence, a cautionary Sir Norman [Bettison, Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police] also said that Yorkshire police were not prepared to wait for it to ‘first emerge into the public eye out of a critical incident like an explosion’. He is right. And if there is one lesson to be learned from the rise of extremist UK Islamism, it is that we should not simply wait for people to die. Action is needed now.

Lobby Luddsaid,

Well, you would. wouldn’t you, young Max. I don’t want to seem patronising, but anti-racism is not new, and has a positive history on the left. It has never needed people like Dennis McShane or Edmund Standing and Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens.

Not the case, I’m afraid. There is footage of one such training camp held last year by members of a group whose members include two individuals charged with possession of ricin and another who has been charged with inciting the murder of Jews. One of these members also posted a pipe bomb making video on their forum before it was taken down.

Lobby Ludd, let’s not make this a factional concern, as it most certainly is not. Opposition to racism is not – or should not be – a vehicle for furthering one or other brand of politics, but rather should be embraced by all decent people who believe in our common humanity and oppose irrationalism and bigotry.

Lobby Luddsaid,

Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB helped set up iEngage, along with his pals from the Islam Channel and Bob Pitt’s Islamophilia Botch. According to Bunglawala – writing at the Muslim Brotherhood ‘Islam Online’ website last November – it is ‘very unfortunate that Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi has been barred from visiting the UK since early 2007 by the British government, following pressure from pro-Israeli lobbies’. Yes, the same Al-Qaradawi who believes that Hitler was sent to punish the Jews and hopes that the next Holocaust will be ‘at the hand of the believers’.

Wot Evahsaid,

Typical smear tactics from Standing. Bunglawala has already responded to similar accusations levelled at him by Standing’s fellow Neo McCarthyite Nick Cohen:

“I certainly do not agree with many of Qaradawi’s views. I have written previously about the need for Islamic scholars and activists need to assume more responsibility to ensure that justified criticism of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians does not slide into casual antisemitism. I also believe that Islamic scholars can learn much from the freedoms we enjoy in liberal secular democracies and that for real progress to be made in solving many of the deep-seated problems facing Muslim-majority countries, the spread of liberal secular democracy and the entrenchment of human rights in those places seems to me to be a prerequisite.”

Hardly sounds like the “Islamist” bogey man Standing wants to create in our minds does he? Of course, the reason for the lame arsed guilt by association technique is to avoid addressing the substantive critique of CfSC’s hopelessly skewed analysis of the threat posed by the far right, i.e. ignoring the centrality of anti muslim racism to the activities of the fascists. It seems entirely plausable that the reticence to document this on behalf of the CfSC stems, as the engage article suggests, from the fact that they share very similar positions with the BNP with regards to the “islamic threat”. These sort of cranks really aren’t the best men for the job for challenging racism!

p.s. Standing’s pathetic attempts to associate Bunglawala with wanting another holocaust remind me of the time on HP Sauce that he tried to impled that the Iraqi shoe thrower al-Zeidi wanted to nuke New York because a Che poster was found in his flat! What a fucking headcase and loon he is.

In fact the anti-Muslim aspect is mentioned in the report, and it’s pathetic that you denounce what is a good and thorough investigation simply because it doesn’t fit in to your ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis

Wot Evah, coward that s/he is for hiding behind a stupid pseudonym, is no doubt a loony left/Islamist type, probably of the Galloway variety. Consequently, I won’t lose any sleep over these comments. But still…

There is no such thing as ‘anti-Muslim racism’ and this term is, for the most part, used by people who either want to make criticism of Islam and Islamism beyond the pale or who subscribe to the far-left’s conspiracy theories about ‘Islamophobia’ (another deceptive term) being a tool for ‘Western imperialism’.

There is anti-Muslim bigotry and there is racism towards ethnic minorities masked as opposition to Islam/Islamism. This kind of masked racism is practiced these days by the BNP, who don’t just hate Muslims but hold racist views about all ethnic minority groups. Many people seem to think the BNP has ‘changed’ and is now simply ‘against Islamic extremism’. The central point of my first CSC report was to demonstrate that this was false and to expose the ideological racism that remains at the core of their ideology.

The most dishonest and downright disgraceful tactic used by the far-left/Islamist crowd is to cry ‘racism’ against those who expose the dangers of Islamism and/or offer rational and reasonable criticism of Islam the religion, which is, after all, from a secular perspective merely another ideology and therefore far from beyond criticism.

Large segments of the Left, seeking to jump into bed with political Islam on the (deluded) basis that it shares their ‘anti-imperialist’ worldview, have essentially become deranged, hence their abandoning the traditional left-wing notions of rationalism and universal human rights in favour of dishonest attacks such as the above and accomodation of religiously flavoured far-right views which, if held by white Christians instead of brown skinned Muslims, they would strongly condemn. After all, when there’s work to be done bringing down the West, we can’t have trivialities such as gay rights becoming a ‘shibboleth’ can we, comrades?

Michele McCannsaid,

The repulsive Standing divides people along pseudo-scientific ‘racial lines’ and supports their exclusion on that basis (immigration controls), as if we have different biology or are different species. That makes him and the BNP different cheeks on the same arse.

Workers have no country — the division in human society is between workers and bosses.

Wot Evahsaid,

Not an Islamist Edmund, but I suppose “loony left” is fair enough – though more of the Luxemburg rather than Galloway flavour if you please. I didn’t say, nor do I think, that opposition to Islamism is necessarily racist. However, it cannot be assumed to be non-racist a priori either. As you point out (but failed to cover in any detail in your report), the BNP use anti-Islam/anti-Islamism rhetoric as a cover for racism: it all depends on context. In determining whether anti-Islamism is a cloak for racism a number of questions can be asked.

Firstly: do you subject other forms of religious inspired politics to the same critique? The answer to this question with respect to the CfSC is no – as far as I’m aware they do not problematise Christian or Jewish inspired political engagements (just looking at your blog I see that you treat BNP members who utilize Christianity for their ends as not real Christians – yet you’d never do that in relation to Islamists).

Secondly: do you treat Islamism as a homogenous phenomenon without any attempt to distinguish its different currents and their vastly different relationships towards politics? Given that Islamism essentially just means taking some sort of inspiration from Islam to engage in politics (therefore, potentially encompassing the vast majority of politically engaged muslims) its rather important to make such distinctions. Again, the CfSC don’t do this – treating all politically active muslims as essentially threats.

Finally – what’s the wider agenda of the group opposing Islamism? I think the words of your director speak for themselves “I promised to propose some of the solutions to this problem … All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop… Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition”. Such ranting is of course indistinguishable from the rantings of a BNP thug. Couple this with the opposition to multicultural and distain for non-Western cultures that permeates the output of the CfSC and I can’t see how your “anti-Islamism” could be construed as anything other than racism. No doubt it also explains your crap analysis of the BNP.

p.s. Max it’s not me that holds a loony “Clash of Civilisations” thesis. Again look to the CfSC’s own director – he explicitly defends Huntington’s crap arguments! Furthermore if you think that pillaging youtube video and blog comments constitutes “good and thorough investigation” then I wish you the best of luck in your own studies – you need it!

1) In the UK people are mainly concerned with Islamist ‘engagement’ because it’s that form of ‘engagement’ that has led to people being blown up on buses. I don’t know if any of Britain’s Jews are planning a theocratic terror attack in the UK. If there is evidence of this happening then of course the CSC should cover it.

I’m sure there are Christian fundamentalists in the UK who want a theocratic state but they tend to work through official channels like lobbying and pressure groups etc rather than stockpiling explosives and training camps.

I’m perfectly aware that there’s a terror threat from white racists and that is why I am highlighting it in this post and have banged on about it before on this blog.

2) Your point about Islamism is just semantics. Islam is diverse; Islamism is just a variant of fascism. Your mate Qaradawi has more in common with Nick Griffin than with your average person from a Muslim country. There is overlap: look at David Myatt. For your own reasons you’ve made up your mind to support this variant of fascism for short term ideological/realpolitikal purposes.

3) The idea that CSC hates all politically active Muslims is just nonsense. It did a whole report on Muslim democrats, liberals, socialists, securalists. But of course they’re not ‘authentic’ Muslims are they.

4) I’m aware of Murray’s views. If you have been reading this site for a while you will know that my views on immigration and multiculturalism are the polar opposite of Murray’s. Obviously I can’t speak for Edmund.

5) Of course the far left hate reports like this because they want to reduce the debate to ‘the BNP versus Muslims’ rather than ‘the BNP versus the free society’. It’s the same shitty communalist/racial politics you lot have been trying to sell for the last five years. It would make me angry if not for the fact that most people, of whatever race and creed, are too smart to fall for your bullshit. Your politics are going nowhere and I’m happy to let you waste your life in your own way.

Wot Evahsaid,

Max, thanks for the reply. For the most part I think you’ve either misrepresented or misunderstood my arguments but I’ll begin with your point 3 where I think you have a point. I accept that I didn’t phrase that very well. Let me try again: while the CfSC may favour a few select “moderates” in the muslim community (who appear to be either ex-muslims or those highly critical of their own communities) it only does so on the basis of supporting them against other muslims and on the basis of their harsh criticisms of their co-religionists (to draw a comparison: the way Ahmadinejad uses that nutty Jewish sect to deflect criticisms of anti-semitism – doesn’t make him immune to charges of anti-semitism). Given that the report you sight was co-written by Murray that should tell you all you need to know about the sincerity of his support for individual muslims.

(1) I accept that the variant of terrorism inspired by extremist Islamism poses the greatest threat to British citizens but there’s still the question of the double standards of the CfSC authors who support the neo-conservative movement which is closely tied to evangelical Christianity (and justifies the use of violence on religious terms) and Israeli violence against the Palestinians (some of which is justified on a religious basis).

I disagree more with your assertion that “Islamism is just a variant of fascism”. Some varieties of Islamism are fascistic, as are other religiously inspired political movements but really all Islamism means is that an individual has decided to engage in politics at least in part on the basis of his or her Islamic beliefs – given that Islam itself is diversely interpreted the variation of political Islam will itself be wide. You have liberal reformists like Tariq Ramadan and Bunglawala and left social democrats like Salma Yaqoob – all of whom are treated as “far right” Islamists by CfSC types, whilst the nutty evangelical Christianity of George Bush is treated as normal. It essentially seems to evolve around whether or not the said Muslim supports or opposes British foreign policy. If they do then they’re fine if not they’re fascists.

(incidentally I think Qaradawi is a nasty prick – he’s no friend of mine)

Finally, I don’t want to reduce the argument to “BNP vs the Muslims” – I agree with you that they pose a threat to us all. However, I think to publish a report on the BNP and pay next to no attention to the main victims of their racist propaganda is a shitty thing to do and probably stems from the Islamophobia of the CfSC itself.

Michele McCannsaid,

Standing supports immigration controls and links to far right sites such as Migration Watch. Immigration controls are inherently racist — they are a product of racism and imperialism. They were introduced from 1905 as a result of fascist agitation to keep out Jews, then Africans and then Asians. There is no ‘fair’ racism. You cannot call yourself ‘antiracist’ and support racist laws.

In Standing’s ‘analysis’ contending social forces are divided along national/’identity’ lines, with the ‘West’ counterposed to the Other — this is essentially the same as the BNP.

It’s amusing that I need to explain this on a nominally ‘socialist’ blog.

Well, Tariq Ramadan is an activist for the far right Muslim Brotherhood, posing as a reformer; Bungawala writes for Qaradawi’s website and Salma Yaqoob cut her teeth defending jihadis in Yemen. These are unpleasant and stupid people. Over here they may seem to you like plucky little dissenters but in most of the Middle East they are in charge. We need to support democrats, liberals and socialists in these places and also in the Muslim communities here in the UK.

Part of the problem of course is that anyone from a Muslim background who leaves their faith or denounces Islamism tends to be viewed as somehow not a ‘proper’ Muslim.

Michele McCannsaid,

So don’t make a case using the words of those who do support immigration control. Would you make a case for anything with the words of Josef Goebbels? Standing’s position is no different to the BNP — keep Britain safe from the perfidious Mohamedans — his problem with them is merely one of aesthetics.

Wot Evahsaid,

Tariq Ramadan is not a member of the Brotherhood – that’s an unfounded lie derived from fruitloop U.S rightwingers. Bungawala, as I’ve already provided a quote to illustrate, disagrees with Qaradawi on many issues. If you’re going to dismiss somebody for writing for a publication owner by a tosser – I take it you’ll extend that to all, say, Times journalists? Yaqoob cut her teeth helping to organise legal defence for her own brother when he was detained and tortured by the Yemeni regime. Tell me Max – what would you do if one of your siblings was jailed and tortured in a foriegn dictatorship? You see, the people who have been promoting the “Yaboob supports terrorists in Yemin” narrative have been well aware that all she did was try to get legal representation (a basic human right) for her own brother and choose to omit this rather crucial detail.

All three, in their own ways, are commited to the democratisation of the middle east and engagement by muslims in the democratic process in “the west”. They, do not however support the export of democracy by B-52s nor to losing their own cultural identies in Europe. This seems to be the reason why they’re singled out as “terror apologists” and “extremists” by both the Islamophobic right and left.

‘Finally, there is, of course, Douglas Murray, “Britain’s only neoconservative”, who has often failed to distinguish Islam from Islamism. In just one speech, for example, Murray referred to the “violence, intimidation and thuggery of Islam” and “the problem of Islam”. Like Steyn, Murray has also represented Muslims as a collective threat, referring ominously to the “demographic time-bomb which will soon see a number of our largest cities fall to Muslim majorities”. He concluded that “conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board” – a phrase that could easily be interpreted as a call for the collective punishment of Muslims.

At this point I must add that until recently I worked with Murray at his Centre for Social Cohesion, which I joined because, in mid-2007, few other thinktanks were willing to seriously address the problem of Islamism at all. My time there was a constant struggle to “de-radicalise” Murray and to ensure that the centre’s output targeted only Islamists – and not Muslims as a whole. This October, however, I had finally had enough of this constant battle and resigned.’

I would have thought that saying someone ‘who leaves their faith’ is not a ‘proper Muslim’ is just an obvious statement of fact. Poor stupid Max.

I couldn’t have put it better myself. People who leave the Muslim faith, indeed Asians who don’t subscribe to your shitty little anti-imperialist narrative, are viewed as ‘inauthentic’ by parts of the left, no matter what their background, how much they know and what they’ve been through.

WotEva

Oh, why not drop it? There are loads of Muslims out there who are against both neoconservatism and Islamism; there is no point doing this pathetic outreach work among the Islamist web coteries just in case you find some cleric who is relatively liberal and only supports flogging gay people rather than hanging them. It’s about as worthwhile as ‘engaging’ with supporters of the BNP.

Yeah, why bother with Bungawala? He’s moved from thinking all books should be vetted by clerics for insult or otherwise burned, to some kind of vague democratic liberalism, but so what? As for Ramadan – he does this kind of vague fluffy Karen Armstrong “religions, especially mine, have so much offer” stuff but why is that anything great to celebrate? (See here for a prime example of non-specific maundering on that theme:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/feb/23/ethics-citizenship-islam )

Wotevahsaid,

I’m not too bothered about Bungawala and Ramadam, I merely brought them up because they don’t exactly fit neatly into Max’s “Islamism = Fascism” thesis. I appreciate that when trying to comprehend complex political movements its easiest to put neat little boxes around reductionist definitions but the reality is usually more complex. I suggest that Islamism is a contested, fragmented, mulitdirectional and multifaceted phenonema, as broad as socialism, liberalism or conservativism.

Wotever; Moshe Machover once accused Sean Matgamna of bandying about the word “fascism” as a term of abuse, rather than as a scientific, political definition. Here’s Sean’s reply:

“Fascists?

You add: “Let me also note in passing that SM is doing here what no serious Marxist should do: for the second time in this article he is using ‘fascist’ as a mere invective rather than as a precise political term. He should know better.”

I wrote not of “fascist”, but of “clerical fascist”. And I did not use it as “mere invective”. Here, once again, we have your irrepressible tendency to let arid pedantry override your sense of reality and of history.

I agree that “fascist” should not be used as mere insult. The Trotskyist movement, and, of course, the working class itself, paid a high price for the idiotic Stalinist habit of flinging the word “fascist” about in that way.

But in fact there are quite a few different sorts of fascism in history. The Francoist movement was an amalgam of smallish fascist organisations, the Spanish army, and the Catholic church: it was a Catholic crusade.

There were clerical fascist movements in many European countries, differing more or less seriously one from another. In Ireland in the early mid 1930s, Blueshirt clerical fascism mushroomed into a mass movement for a while: it had among its peculiarities the fact that most of it (unlike any other clerical-fascism I know, anywhere) was less nationalistic and less narrowly chauvinist than its “mainstream” rivals, the De Valera government and its unofficial IRA supporters.

Clerical fascism, in relation to Iran, means mass mobilisations motivated by religious or religio-social ideas and feelings, for Islamist totalitarian-political goals. The feelings it builds on include feelings of alienation from capitalism which, in more favourable circumstances, could lead some of the people involved to revolutionary communist conclusions: but that is a feature of all fascist movements.

You describe Iran as a “theocracy”, but that is a complementary designation, not one that excludes the description “clerical fascism”. There were large elements of theocracy in fascist Spain and Portugal. There were very large elements, perhaps larger than in fascist Spain or Portugal, of theocracy in bourgeois-democratic Ireland for many decades (when the bishops could call in a minister and simply tell him what to do, and be obeyed; and often would not even deign to give reasons for it: see the memoirs of the one-time minister, Dr. Noel Browne, “Against the Tide”).

Granted that there is imprecision in it, “clerical fascism” will do to be getting on with as a description of authoritarian-totalitarian Islamist politico-religious movements.”

There is no record of a reply from Machover. I attended a debate between him and Sean, and he did not return to that theme. He knew that Sean had him beat on that question.